Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 25, 2014 6:30am-7:01am PDT

6:30 am
tell you what it does as an architect i've found a boarder spectrum of people who need this housing it's not only the process between the landlord and tenant i find this with all of the cases that i've found to their dismay my clients very much find in the process of remodeling their building that had a non-compliant unit 0 they could only remove the unit and we have a piece of legislation that ribbons this and in the eastern neighborhoods it is not meeting the supply so to retain the units that are the most affordable and remaining them it of utmost importance.
6:31 am
the time spent on supervisor chiu's working group i find a broad spectrum of people who are giving talking about the problems and they've hammered out a reasonable piece of legislation to be applied. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors i'm christen i'm with a c organization i want to read a statement by a former - >> can you come closer. >> i'm from china my husband joined us i didn't have much money i found a place to live and i was paying one thousand $50 a month i didn't know how to get around and i looked for work
6:32 am
in the same area we lifted i lived behind a garage unit and i was able to pay for the food. i know how expensive it could be if i didn't live in a illegal you unit the landlord wanted to raise the rent by one hundred and $50 a month we didn't couldn't do our laundry there. the landlord told us to move out because our place was an illegal unit we went to the asian caucus and ultimately we settled the case and had to a move out. we didn't couldn't find a place but behind another garage but the rent was more expensive and
6:33 am
didn't have a kitchen. and we don't have a choice to have two bedrooms and a illegal unit will help us to live ♪ san francisco and help us so we know the rent won't be out of reach. i think this will help a lot of immigrant families who have been living here like us for many years >> thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm matthew i'm the current president of the west side that represents hoa's. we have quite a few of the members here. just to get a count raise our hands. it pressure ports to bring the
6:34 am
illegal unit out of the shadows. however, there are some loopholes in the legislation as written that has consequences. specifically it will drive the number of single-family united higher because of deep pocket speculators will swoop in to buy the units at some point included a roommate. somebody who paid rent but was secondary. by making it harder for the speculators to buy those units it can help. it's a door for absentee landlords to change the
6:35 am
character of our neighborhood. it says it applies to acknowledge illegal unit but there's nothing in the legislation that limit it to spate entrance today and allows for the expansion of the size i've mentioned. we this there are unintended kwunsz i consequences but if amended we could mitigate those but we've not seen any interest on the part of supervisor chiu >> i have a question. >> all right. mr. chamberlain we have a couple of questions supervisor kim and supervisor cowen. >> so i appreciate the concerns that the council brought up as stacey said there are amend that would mitigate some of the
6:36 am
intended consequences i'm curious. >> specifically one thing we want to see is the owner that currently, the out of respect should be in it on january 1st, 2013, that will mean it affects only current places accompanied. >> we want to see the only owner be an owner that owned the property on january 1st, 2013, or before so that would stop future developers swooup and trying to purchase single-family so they could buy is and flat it 20/20 flats and rent it is important expensively. >> thank you. >> i have a question if in your
6:37 am
remarks you talked about speculators coming in and doing what you said whatever spectaculars do i'm curious about your thoughts. >> if there were an amendment that said only the owner could apply if they owned the property prior to january 1st, 2013, it would stop purpdz from purposing it with the full intent. >> when you say purposing the single-family home. >> right for each one and converting it into two flats and selling one with a remedy on the bottom, we think that's bad for the city because it takes family sized housing permanently out of the market and we have suitable
6:38 am
single families homeless for smaller units. >> so do you think when they purchased this house you described it as two homes they subdivide the two subdivisions. >> no once the house is second divide the it must be remerged and can't be sold as condos but there's nothing from stopping someone from buying an rh one unit and subdividing is and turning it into a rental. >> so i'm trying to better understand your argument or concern family housing the opportunity for a person or family to own a house is take it
6:39 am
off but not eliminate the opportunity for the family to rent the same house. >> our concern is making the units into smaller unit. >> mr. champing less than the amendments articulated that the position. >> there are 2. >> i'm not sorry their opted and owned and of january 1st, 2013. >> you have tenants. >> yes. >> i'm sorry what. >> that they had tenants in place by january 1st, 2013. >> and it was the same owner that's those are the only two amendments. >> it goes a long ways to prevent a land rush. >> i'm asking is the position for those two amendments the opposition drops or -
6:40 am
>> unfortunately, that's my position we've auditor german around and around and around. >> not in your official capacity. >> thank you for clarifying. next speaker >> good afternoon, supervisors any public comment? i'm audry i've been a resident of san francisco for over 40 years i'm near portal avenue. i do oppose the legislation for the same reasons matt opted it, it's a good thing to improve safety for tenants. i'm not sure i think the legislation shouldn't apply blanket wise it should be from neighborhood to neighborhood rather than citywide. i think there could be
6:41 am
unintended consequences asia mentioned but we know there are hot neighborhoods in the city where a lot of people want to live that can buy the houses and to the extent they have illegal units they want to rent they can evict the tenants to sell it to biotech millionaires. and then lastly i think there's two purposes to this one is to improve the safety for the existing tenants and others i believe it was to increase the housing stock. and i think it would make sense for the committee to look at this and do a study so it can
6:42 am
show you that it is doing what it's that intended to do >> thank you very much mr. reiteratinger. >> good afternoon. i'm roger witnessinger president of the balboa organization. we've oppose this first balboa terrace was a single-family neighborhood and it remained one every sense and they're part of the housing mix and are part of the density independent that's an important point. they also preserve san francisco's unique character and prevent the manhattantion of san francisco. second balboa terrace like others have their own cc and
6:43 am
railroads that have the covenants for fees to allow the secondary units in violation of cc n rs my constitute a problem with enforcement of our contract. the legalization of the secondary units is not necessary for the families to live where they don't have their own kitchens they're already allowed. in fact, balboa terrace welcomes extended families living together. just this weekend we welcomed an immigrant family to reorganize their housing. this legislation constitutes a total rezoning of the city draft with rh one and rh d zones and
6:44 am
deserves a thorough discussion if the city wants to change one hundred years of zoning laws it can do with with a debate >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm carolyn johnson i live in westport overlook. for the reasons that have already been discussed it's hard to foresee the impact this legislation will have it's been carefully thought through but there are assumptions that are difficult to predict so r and to know whether or not they're right so i suggest a pilot program where you would take a neighborhood where this is more likely needed or you feel most
6:45 am
confident about the impact and the inforeseen six and study it positive and negative impacts such a pilot program and decide based on that data whether it would be good for the city as a whole or modifications need to be made neighborhood by neighborhood. for example, what is the impact for the city and how much to police the unit and how many people are going to apply and what's going to happen to the tenants in those units i don't know, there are a lot of assumptions i want to know before we make this a binding law. thank you >> thank you very much next speaker. >> hello, i'm george wood resident of district 7 for over
6:46 am
33 years. chiu wants to have the homeowners illegal units that are opted those are will escape the affordability of those unions. how will the compliance he and the fees help to increase the affordable housing units human resources how do you prevent the proliferation of those units cherished in the neighborhoods that fosters this and has respect for the values of the district. the unintentional consequences will be to convert a historically single-family dwelling neighborhood into a rental district with no cc n rs
6:47 am
for the landscape and overall appearance. the renters have no stack in the property they expect the landlord to maintain the premises but it must be the responsibility of the tenants. the owners may hold the homes for real estate separation. the streets in district 7 are congested and low he elementary school are blocking trucks for emergencies what will be the vial impact for the parked cars on our streets. thank you >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm chris if i wong i'm the director for spur.
6:48 am
spur is a local pub policy think tank we support the supervisors legislation. we have long advocated for in law units as a sensitive way to increase the density in san francisco while appreciating the character their cheaper to build out and meet needs in the community while this proposed legislation will not increase san francisco's housing supply that will hope to eliminate safety hazards and protect tenants thought the city we support this legislation. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello, i'm ms. williams. i have basically 3 main - basically part of this proposal
6:49 am
will and should pass. something like that is an important proposition to add housing stock in san francisco and making sure everyone has a humane living space in san francisco. however, one of the issues is that you, you brought up supervisor chiu that some of the tenants are in my opinion some of the homeowners are elderly and they really don't think the rent from the tenants who tend to be younger and actually better employed to keep up the property and not letting the homeowner pass through the cost of legal listing this unit is punt active and regressing politics because it's punishing the lerldly homeowners. i know number two change is
6:50 am
constant and not allowing those units to go back into their best use which is a single-family is again an intended consequence for example, i bought a house when i was single had an in law underneath that i rented i got married may had a baby and needed my whole house and thirdly, as a resident of forte hill in district 7 west of the hill does exist and diversity is part of san francisco we put up with going to live in a single-family neighborhood and we should have the enjoyment of that so don't do a blanket statement. supervisor wiener's pilot program might be the way to go
6:51 am
and see how it works in a smaller district. thank you >> thank you. ma'am, supervisor cowen has a question >> i have a question i want to make sure i understand you said the elderly do or don't currently rent. >> at the do if i 0 go to the district you'll see elderly people that's how - >> hold on do you have any metrics how many units? >> i'm speaking antidotely. >> i sell real estate in san francisco and come across elderly they couldn't have kept their homes and paid the property taxation if they were not able to rent the lower unit so - >> thank you. thank you
6:52 am
>> president chiu. >> you're making a case why we should do this if you have elderly homeownerships that are relying on rent illegal and if dbi were to shut that down from my prospective i'm trying to help protect the status for the tenant and for the homeowner to have a stream of living wages. >> so let them have the pass through when the tenant is in better shape than the homeowner. the tenant benefits so the unintended consequence if a person is going to be afraid of the expense so they would keep the unit vacant and restore it back into the single-family so
6:53 am
the unintended consequence is to have less of the units available for rent and if i could one final comment we've structured a volunteer region we're not forcing the homeowners if they determine they want this but again, we're not saying you have to do this. i appreciate our comments and i'm listening carefully and i'm city still trying to process but thank you >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm president of the small property owners of san francisco. the previous speaker spoke well, we're concerned owners can't pass through their costs we have a concern we realize that in law
6:54 am
units are under rent control but the single-family houses can be reverted and the cost of hawkins can it's my understanding this legislation if a secondarily unit is legal listed turned it into a two single-family forever there's no way to sell it as a two-family house. this legislation make sense for somebody who has a 3 unit are more building but for someone who has a one unit building to turn it into a two unit building it's very if i didn't i don't think someone will do that for someone who has a 2 unit building and to turn it to 3 story there recent new codes in
6:55 am
place for smoke alarms and firewalls this sort of thing could be expensive and not being able to pass through the cost we don't think people will take advantage of this program >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm elizabeth i live in balboa terrace i recently moved out of district 8 where i voted for you supervisor wiener. first of all, i'm not a trust furnished my husband and i saved to purchase a single-family home. time and time implicit we were outbid by developers who purchased homes only to build separate units in the basement
6:56 am
with the cc and rs we looked at those in every neighborhood where he wanted to purchase a home. not only does this open the doors for the developers but awards the stakeholders. someone wants to build the neighborhoods have an opportunity to review the building plan and an opportunity to oppose the building plan or to amend the building plan by passing this legislation it will deny due process it will undermine the value of my home. i know what i left and bought into >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm frank i'm president of the monterey heights association.
6:57 am
most of the residents in my area we have concerns we not have expressed the same thing as mr. chamberlain we have cc and rs as well that restrict us to single-family units. people move to the neighborhood to profit so far as the lifestyle and we're talking about 4 house we feel there's a lot of exam passion for people that applying it as a blanket policy would effect create different results for different areas and our area would be a drawback. we're certainly endorsing the benefits of the gentleman >> thank you very much. next
6:58 am
speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm karen. i'm a board member of the balboa improvement club that represents 32 hundred homes were in district 7 in an rh one zoned neighborhood. this is y where homes are in reach of the middle-class we have many young families in the morning young families working to school. and the legislation will not create more affordable housing and not keep families in the city i think it's quite the opposite. i believe few owners will want to have the bigger fees it will open the doors for speculators if i want to sell my home i
6:59 am
could sell it for two homes instead of one. this will increase the value of the property and speculators will be able to anti price families which is the opposite of what we would like in our neighborhood. this will drive more families out of the city. if you're sincere about keeping families in the city please vote against this legislation unless the rh one neighborhoods are exempted >> thank you very much. next speaker. i have a few more cards let me read them off (calling names) >> you did okay i'm not sorry, sir go ahead. >> good afternoon. i'm o
7:00 am
marrow i'm with the asian caucus. the caucus strongly supports the proposal for our community that include protecting immigrants and have seniors and long starpd resident of the city to be able to legalize their homes. it was based on a community survey that took place in 2011 about the time the housing market was bought out a 35 percent discount u discount from the market rate according to hud. this survey was an internal assessment we knew of the housing stock but wanted to take a glance of the people
left
right